This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Originally Posted by Dave Mittner

His point was that Muslims wouldn't kill Muslims based on their religion if they believed the same thing.

ISIS claims to be Islamic but their beliefs are obviously warped outside of normalcy for the religion. The religion has 1.6 billion members and clearly they're not all following the same radical agenda of ISIS. Obama is just pointing that out. Were his comments precise? Maybe not, but describing it in the necessary detail to be precise would likely have bored most viewers and would have lost their attention.

Then it may have been wiser for him to not preach what Islam either is or isn't. He seems to deliberately put himself in these foolish situations which could be easily avoided. That he feels the need to express an unnecessary opinion seems to be a habit of his.

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Originally Posted by Grant

Then it may have been wiser for him to not preach what Islam either is or isn't. He seems to deliberately put himself in these foolish situations which could be easily avoided. That he feels the need to express an unnecessary opinion seems to be a habit of his.

Really? This is the president you're concerned about effectively expressing himself?

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Originally Posted by Porchev

If ISIL or ISIS is not Islamic, why does he keep calling them ISIL?

ISIL by their own definition are Islamic. They are a sick extreme version of Islam that needs to be destroyed by all means necessary, however, they still are Islamic fascists terrorizing millions of people. What should happen is the civilized people of Islam (which there are millions) should rise up and destroy ISIL/ISIS. And we should be glad to help with that endeavor.

North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that make them a democracy just because they have Democratic and Republic in their name?

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

I'm stating it's as much semantics as claiming half the Muslim supports killing civilians. You can twist definitions and logic around until you've made even the most revered society members out to be vile, depending on the viewpoint and the propaganda.

No, you can twist definitions and logic around but i refuse to pay this game.

I don't support ISIL, but it's not because of their religion. Their religion is an internal viewpoint. Internal viewpoints aren't of harm to me until exercised. I disagree with their violence, which is a common issue across humanity.

Ni idea what the"I" in ISIL stands for?

We don't define them as "human." We don't define them as "male." We don't define them as "religious." We define them as Islamic because that definition fits in with the propaganda.

They are Islamic. They are Muslims. You'll have to live with that, just as they do.

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha

The problem doesn't come from having a moral code, it's when you convoluted it with stuff that isn't relevant to it, like the cow line. There are certain things that every human being knows is wrong without being told, until the indoctrination comes in. For instance, killing someone is not something that a human being does naturally; there's reason why most murders occur either accidentally or in the heat of the moment. Very rarely do you have the try sociopaths that are just evil. You wanna know what my moral code is? ""Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The idea that people shouldn't be interfering with another's life, unless it directly affects them. This is why I believe that we have the higher moral ground in the west, because (in general) we respect an individual's wishes to live the life as they wish (again with the caveat that it doesn't interfere with mine.) I know as long as our government follows the principle, then we'll be alright.

Apparently every human being doesn't know these things because there are plenty of countries where these morals are not taught where things happen quite differently. Just because you want that to be true doesn't actually make it true. Even in our own country, there are things that go on that might violate our own moral sense, but they happen nonetheless and you're just pretending that there has to be something wrong with people who do something you disagree with because you don't want to deal with the reality that your moral position isn't objective.

This is the problem with a lot of libertarian thought, it revolves around a really ridiculous assumption that there are these magical, mystical rights just floating around in the ether that exist everywhere, just because you want them to. Natural rights are nonsense. The rights we have in this country, the rights that are enumerated in the founding documents of this country, exist because the founding fathers wanted them and put them there. If we were to do it all over today, a lot of what appears in the founding documents certainly wouldn't appear in the new ones. The world has changed and will continue to change and clinging desperately to the past, just because some people that you respect wrote it down, doesn't really help us go anywhere useful.

And by the way, as nice of an idea of saying that "one way isn't any more right or wrong than other" might be, you realize the number of things you are condoning by not condemning them? I won't insult your intelligence by listing them all, but needless to say, when one doesn't have that sense of what is right and what is wrong, you can find yourself defending a lot of bad things.

I've neither condoned nor condemned a thing, the lack of one is not the presence of the other. There are plenty of things that I would both condone and condemn, but I'd never do either of them because of a sound byte, a statement that something is right or wrong, simply because it is right or wrong. I could actually defend my views in detail and I also recognize that my views are just my opinions, just as yours are, even if you're unwilling to acknowledge that.

There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

True but it's not really any different than the old "Irish troubles" where the Catholics and the Protestants were at war.

It's completely different. Absolutely different.

No they weren't. Whatever Christianity adopted came from the human experience, none of it was original to Christianity, Christians have simply tried to take credit.

If you want to give credit to some group other than Christians, or those influenced by Christianity, who were they?

Secular society. We no longer allow Christians to run wild in the streets, we don't allow them to own slaves, we don't allow them to force adherence to their religion, we don't allow Inquisitions, etc. None of those things were give up voluntarily by Christianity, they were taken away by force by a society sick and tired of Christian abuses. If it wasn't for secular society, the Catholics would still be raping altar boys without consequence. They're still doing it, of course, but at least there are criminal and civil penalties for it now.

I have not seen Christians running wild in the streets, Christians worked to end slavery, and child molestation occurs everywhere, and is even condoned by some cultures and at least one major religion.

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

No, you can twist definitions and logic around but i refuse to pay this game.
Ni idea what the"I" in ISIL stands for?

They are Islamic. They are Muslims. You'll have to live with that, just as they do.

A) You're already playing, you just don't appreciate it.

B) They're self identifying. There are many self identifying groups and individuals who don't necessarily get recognized by the greater society. I'm guessing thine quicker to accept their religious status than you would to accept a transgender's identity.

C) They are human. They are religious. They are male. They are rebels. Why the significance that aspect of their shared identity and not the others?

Re: Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

A) You're already playing, you just don't appreciate it.

Sure.

B) They're self identifying. There are many self identifying groups and individuals who don't necessarily get recognized by the greater society. I'm guessing thine quicker to accept their religious status than you would to accept a transgender's identity.

'm not interested in your guesses. There's too much of that silliness going on.

C) They are human. They are religious. They are male. They are rebels. Why the significance that aspect of their shared identity and not the others?

It was they who gave them their shared identity, not me. Best take that up with them.